The specific location you posted would suck, in my city AT&T did a great job of placing VRADs in places that weren't obnoxious. They're almost all next to a current AT&T DSLAM or similar and those are generally hidden back from view unless you're looking.

"Just found out that AT&T is trying to put a hideous box on our lawn," one of my neighbors wrote on our block's Facebook page in late August. "[W]orried about it not only being ugly as hell, but do not want the view of the alley blocked because it is dangerous."

Wut? This is not a sensible thing to say; it is completely lacking in the sense.

And woo, let's brag about the 2 grand we get to waste per box for *landscaping* for christsake and make ourselves that much more repulsive to residents of Chicago, like myself. It's not like we have massive third-world ghettoes hanging around that could use the money, or anything.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not all obsessed with social equality that will never come, so don't spend the money feeding the poor or fixing the broken, potholed streets if you don't want to. But *definitely* don't waste the money on window-dressing for your high speed internet, that's downright obscene.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I read the story and I have no problems with it, but I don't understand why this story is on Ars? This seems like an article for the local paper. I read all the way to the end waiting for what my takeaway from the article was supposed to be and got nothing.

It sort of comes across as a combination local newspaper article/journal entry where someone is trying to personally work out whether or not he minds this whole project. I just don't understand the point of this story at all and I certainly don't understand what anyone who doesn't live in the authors town is supposed to get out of it.

While I hardly consider it a work of art, I don't see those boxes as being particularly ugly. They are grey boxes. Other than the dimensions, they look like other grey boxes. They aren't the biggest grey boxes I've seen. The biggest concern seems to be their placement, which isn't all that interesting for people that don't live there.

I've actually used U-Verse for upwards of 4 years, and I'm actually really satisfied with them. It's almost never gone out, I get plenty of bandwidth for HD streaming and whatnot, and I've NEVER payed anywhere NEAR $180. Right now I've ditched any form of TV service and just pay for 12Mbps internet. I guess I dodge the ugly box issue because our telephone poles are behind our house, so the boxes are mostly out of sight. Even so-- I think it would be a nice gesture to offer some kind of super cheap package to people who own property that the boxes live on. That's just being a friendly neighbor.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I read the story and I have no problems with it, but I don't understand why this story is on Ars? This seems like an article for the local paper. I read all the way to the end waiting for what my takeaway from the article was supposed to be and got nothing.

It sort of comes across as a combination local newspaper article/journal entry where someone is trying to personally work out whether or not he minds this whole project. I just don't understand the point of this story at all and I certainly don't understand what anyone who doesn't live the authors town is supposed to get out of it.

Edit: Typo

This is just an example of an issue that has dogged AT&T's U-verse all over the country; in -my- town, AT&T actually sued my city after it tried to block their proposed deployment of cabinets (again, the issue was size and location). You may think the aesthetics issues don't/shouldn't matter, but to many people, they do... We thought it was worth providing a local perspective on the issue now that AT&T is once again expanding the network.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I read the story and I have no problems with it, but I don't understand why this story is on Ars? This seems like an article for the local paper. I read all the way to the end waiting for what my takeaway from the article was supposed to be and got nothing.

It sort of comes across as a combination local newspaper article/journal entry where someone is trying to personally work out whether or not he minds this whole project. I just don't understand the point of this story at all and I certainly don't understand what anyone who doesn't live the authors town is supposed to get out of it.

Edit: Typo

This is just an example of an issue that has dogged AT&T's U-verse all over the country; in -my- town, AT&T actually sued my city after it tried to block their proposed deployment of cabinets (again, the issue was size and location). You may think the aesthetics issues don't/shouldn't matter, but to many people, they do... We thought it was worth providing a local perspective on the issue now that AT&T is once again expanding the network.

This comment should be promoted.

Apart from this, if those grey boxes are eyesores, what about those huge telephone/electric poles?

The shubs will grow, but it makes you wonder why they couldn't just dig down and install underground VRADs with the extra $2000. I think flat cover-plates would be less obvious than the 4-foot boxes.

Truthfully, I do find that home-owners do tend to be a little over sensitive to this. They're being installed on public land that the city reserves for future use, primarily for expanding roads if needed. It's not like they're being installed on private property.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I read the story and I have no problems with it, but I don't understand why this story is on Ars? This seems like an article for the local paper. I read all the way to the end waiting for what my takeaway from the article was supposed to be and got nothing.

It sort of comes across as a combination local newspaper article/journal entry where someone is trying to personally work out whether or not he minds this whole project. I just don't understand the point of this story at all and I certainly don't understand what anyone who doesn't live in the authors town is supposed to get out of it.

edit: typos

The "not on my lawn" issue has followed AT&T around the country as it has rolled out U-Verse. We've covered the issue of broadband competition extensively over the decade I've been here and this was intended as a look at the issue on a local level.

We have big boxes around our townhome lot. They are between parking spots, out of the way and have massive shrubbery blocking them. Other than hearing the faint buzz you really do not notice them. I will have to take a picture later in the day

I would be annoyed myself if I had a home and it was on a public parkway.

I wish I had that problem. I can only get TWC where I live; competition is not an option. That said, I do live in a historic district, so maybe AT&T did try to come into my neighborhood at one time and were shut down. Cable companies can't compete with each other in Texas (or San Antonio, at least), so the other option, Grande Communications, is unavailable. Grande has 100 Mbps service for about the same as I pay for 50 with TWC.

First, give the little shrubberies time to grow, then the boxes will be hidden behind oddly-placed hedges. The hedges are more likely to cause visibility problems, long term.

Second, this is primarily an issue in manicured neighborhoods with underground cabling. In a place already criss-crossed with telephone poles, I expect the VRADs would likely end up on the poles themselves in a different form factor. (EDIT: There are telephone poles in that picture. Why is AT&T burying cables and putting VRADs on the ground???)

Companies face similar issues trying to dig up land for any other purpose. If you're crossing industrial brownfields, no one cares. If it's the wetland habitat of the endangered star-bellied sneetch, then you will be saddled with all kinds of additional expenses to return things as close as possible to the ex-ante state.

The shubs will grow, but it makes you wonder why they couldn't just dig down and install underground VRADs with the extra $2000. I think flat cover-plates would be less obvious than the 4-foot boxes.

Truthfully, I do find that home-owners do tend to be a little over sensitive to this. They're being installed on public land that the city reserves for future use, primarily for expanding roads if needed. It's not like they're being installed on private property.

I seen a few of those around town installed in the public parkway. They are a lot better looking and a few have a fiber optic cable warning post if anything sticking out of the ground.

I live in a turn-of-the 19th century suburb of a major city, and these boxes would never be allowed. Heck, we still replace the bricks in the streets every 3 years instead of putting down asphalt. Surely AT&T can do better aesthetically?

I agree that this seems a little provincial for Ars, but I'm quite shocked by the prices. I've not paid anywhere near $180/month for my connection since ISDN days 20 years ago. I'm in France and standard all-inclusive ADSL2+ (24M max) with unlimited phone and TV is typically about €30/month ($40). 100M Fibre (where you can get it) is around €45 ($60). The story is similar in the UK. Are broadband prices really that high in the US?

I'm baffled that this is something worth griping about - many of us would love to have the "problem" of an unsightly box in exchange for having more carriers.

In most of suburban Cook county, the ugly utilities run through nice ugly alleys behind the houses (where our garages are). The streets the houses front on are largely kept clear of anything other than man hole covers, side walks, and trees.

Anything added at all is instantly an eyesore and breaks the convention that the utilities are kept in the alleyways. This has been one of the main critiques of their boxes: AT&T seems to be going out of its way to keep their boxes in the way.

First, give the little shrubberies time to grow, then the boxes will be hidden behind oddly-placed hedges.

Until somebody has to come out and fix one and ends up ripping up the hedge to do it.

Done correctly, there is either an open side to the hedge (usually the side facing a building) or the hedge has an itsy-bitsy courtyard in it with enough room to open the access panels and prod things with long-handled tools.

5 foot tall is nothing. I'm Australian Try one of our DSLAM's sitting around with an ADSL 2 "tophat" installed on top. At least Telstra have the decency to paint the things green.

In my neighborhood, AT&T set up a multi-story office building that takes up half a block!Of course, the last two places I've lived had utility poles and really ugly wiring, so I hardly notice the building at all.

The boxes have to go somewhere. AT&T followed their contract. I have a gray box about 1/2 the size between my house and my neighbor's house. Give it 1 year and people will look right past it. As the guy a few posts above said, at least they could paint it green.

Anything can be fixed for the right price if these neighbors can't unbunch their pants.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I read the story and I have no problems with it, but I don't understand why this story is on Ars? This seems like an article for the local paper. I read all the way to the end waiting for what my takeaway from the article was supposed to be and got nothing.

It sort of comes across as a combination local newspaper article/journal entry where someone is trying to personally work out whether or not he minds this whole project. I just don't understand the point of this story at all and I certainly don't understand what anyone who doesn't live the authors town is supposed to get out of it.

Edit: Typo

This is just an example of an issue that has dogged AT&T's U-verse all over the country; in -my- town, AT&T actually sued my city after it tried to block their proposed deployment of cabinets (again, the issue was size and location). You may think the aesthetics issues don't/shouldn't matter, but to many people, they do... We thought it was worth providing a local perspective on the issue now that AT&T is once again expanding the network.

This comment should be promoted.

Apart from this, if those grey boxes are eyesores, what about those huge telephone/electric poles?

Poles are usually done at corners and alleyway entrances. Plus they are less of a eyesore at when you are looking straight at height level. AT&T wants to put this in parkways all over their neighborhood along with putting them in locations that block line of sight for people going in and out of the alley. Plus a big hedge on the parkway just looks ugly vs a pole.

Generally, I'm a free market/competition sort of guy. But there are certain services where competition doesn't make sense: electricity, water (delivery), sewer, and yes, wired and wireless communications infrastructure. We need exactly ONE wired communications network and ONE wireless network for the whole country.

We can have competition by allowing customer-facing companies to offer retail packages. The underlying infrastructure should be governed the same way other utilities are.